So thanks to tilly for yet another thought provoking thread, and thanks to yourself for a bit of evidence of the contrary view.

I don't think mine and tilly's views are actually different (just
different angles into this interesting topic). He mentioned an OO colleague
of his having problems with McConnell's information regarding longer
routine sizes, and he noted he found the OO does tend to have reduced
routine (method) sizes (perhaps explaining the OO programmers bias). I
agree OO tends to have more shorter routines than equivelant
procedural code, and I even waxed (hypo)theoretic on one possible reason
this might be so (OO allows organized coupling, freeing the programmer from
managing it). Not that OO code can't be found (all too easily) that suffers
from overly monolithic routines or overly fragmented routines (there is no
spoon, I mean, panacea).

Tis a pitty you are anonymous or I would follow the nodes you write on a regular basis

You still can. You just won't know if its one of my
better nodes or just some drivel until after you look at it :-)

When putting a smiley right before a closing parenthesis, do you:

Use two parentheses: (Like this: :) )
Use one parenthesis: (Like this: :)
Reverse direction of the smiley: (Like this: (: )
Use angle/square brackets instead of parentheses
Use C-style commenting to set the smiley off from the closing parenthesis
Make the smiley a dunce: (:>
I disapprove of emoticons
Other